|
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Information.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>'''[[:Template:Convert]]''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the '''[[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC Tmcft in convert template?|discussion page]]'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you.
:The RfC question is: Should the {{tl|Convert}} template support the unit [[Tmcft]]? [[User:Joe vom Titan|Joe vom Titan]] ([[User talk:Joe vom Titan|talk]]) 20:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
== Date range: clarify usage of ''to'' as in "from 1890 to 1893" ==
For editors that are trying to discover if "to" or "and" can be used within a date range, that guidance is really hard to understand.
The MOS currently says {{green| Use an en dash, or a word such as ''from'' or ''between'', but not both: {{xt|from 1881 to 1886}} (not {{!xt|{{nobr|from 1881{{ndash}}1886}}}});{{nbsp}} {{xt|between June{{nbsp}}1 and July{{nbsp}}3}} (not {{!xt|{{nobr|between June{{nbsp}}1{{snd}}July{{nbsp}}3}}}}) }}.
I think it is trying to say: {{green|Words ''to'' or ''and'' may be used instead of a dash only when used with words like ''between'' or ''from''. As in {{xt|from 1881 to 1886}} or {{xt|between June{{nbsp}}1 and July{{nbsp}}3}} }}
Even if my interpretation is wrong, caan the wording be improved to clearly explain when "to" or "and" can be used instead of a dash? [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 15:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
: I've tweaked the wording to make it clearer, though it remains to be seen whether it stays tweaked (direct changes to the MOS are often challenged, and I expect that the wording can be improved further). See whether this makes it clearer to you. —[[User_talk:Quondum|Quondum]] 16:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Quondum|Quondum]] That is better, thanks. I think it could still be a bit clearer.
::Here is what happened: I wrote an aritcle with "from 1723 to 1728". A reviewer, in Peer Review, posted a note ''"[[MOS:YEARRANGE]] says you have to use a dash".'' So I viewed the [[MOS:YEARRANGE]] section to see if the reviewer was correct. I started reading, and after ten bullets emphasizing how wonderful dashes were, I came to the conclusion that "to" was prohibited. I was ready to bail out and change my article, when I stumbled on a bullet that kinda sorta permitted the word "to". It took me about 60 seconds of reading and re-reading to make sure "to" was permitted.
::It would be nice if the guidance came out and explicitly said ''"The words ''to'' or ''and'' can be used ...[subject to these limitations]." ''[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 17:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
::: I think I see what you're saying. Even though the bullet that I modified essentially explicitly allows words, the first bullet effectively negates this for year-only ranges because it says {{xt|A simple '''year–year''' range is written using an ...}}, and does not include use of words in its allowed list. I see no reason to disallow words in this case, as it should be up to the editor. I would like more discussion from others before changing this, as I'm not familiar with the agreed intent behind that bullet. —[[User_talk:Quondum|Quondum]] 17:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Another editor just improved that section to make it clearer. Looking pretty good now. [[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 19:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Just to say, I prefer to work behind the scenes. So don't tell anyone it was me. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::: Ha! Such false modesty from a very visibly present editor in the MOS. I like the revised version. Thanks. —[[User_talk:Quondum|Quondum]] 20:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Darn. I thought I was on the secure channel. Now the Secretary of Defense's wife is gonna know, and you know what blabbermouth ''she'' is. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 20:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
*{{!xt|{{nobr|from 1881{{ndash}}1886}}}}) and {{!xt|{{nobr|between June{{nbsp}}1{{snd}}July{{nbsp}}3}}}} are not coherent uses within running prose, and I really don't to see any instance where use of them should ever be tolerated. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA"> Ohc </span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 12:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
*:Your point being what? The guideline already forbids such constructions. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 12:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
== Year adjacent to numerical value ==
I'm having some trouble finding a 'clean', grammatically correct reconstruction of this sentence (from [[Uranium hexafluoride]]), in order to separate the year from the numerical value immediately adjacent:
{{tq|"In 2005, 686,500 tonnes of D-{{chem2|UF6}} was housed in 57,122 storage cylinders located near [[Portsmouth, Ohio|Portsmouth]], Ohio; [[Oak Ridge, Tennessee|Oak Ridge]], Tennessee; and [[Paducah, Kentucky|Paducah]], Kentucky."}}
I first thought of moving the year to the end of the sentence a la '[...], as of 2005', but then it leaves the sentence opening with a numerical value. I then thought this might be a solution:
{{tq|In 2005, D-{{chem2|UF6}} in the amount of 686,500 tonnes was housed in 57,122 storage cylinders located near [[Portsmouth, Ohio|Portsmouth]], Ohio; [[Oak Ridge, Tennessee|Oak Ridge]], Tennessee; and [[Paducah, Kentucky|Paducah]], Kentucky.}}
Which satisfies the criteria, but it's a bit stilted. I'd be interested if some 'fresh eyes' on it might come up with a more graceful construct (notwithstanding that it's a highly technical article, so an artful presentation of the information isn't ''truly'' necessary!). cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 22:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:How about starting the sentence with "About 686,000 tonnes of D-UF_6 were housed ..."? [[User:Dondervogel 2|Dondervogel 2]] ([[User talk:Dondervogel 2|talk]]) 22:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::As is typical for me, Occam's razor eluded me. It's obviously not a strict value, so 'about' does the trick very nicely. Thank you! cheers. [[User:Anastrophe|anastrophe]], [[User talk:Anastrophe|an editor he is.]] 22:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
== Non-breaking hyphen ==
At [[Template talk:Convert#Nowrap]], we've been talking about whether {{t|Convert}} might use a non-breaking hyphen in e.g. generating 8.4-metre from <code><nowiki>{{convert|8.4|m|ft|adj=on}}</nowiki></code>. The warning at [[Help:Line-break handling#Non-breaking hyphen]] wouldn't seem to apply, as editors wouldn't see an awkward <code><nowiki>&#8209;</nowiki></code>. However, our example "{{ xt|a 10-centimeter blade}}" in [[MOS:UNITNAMES]] uses a plain hyphen. {{u|Johnuniq}} quite reasonably suggested we ask here if that's somehow intentional; better to ask before considering changing code. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 15:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:Thanks, yes, the question concerns what kind of hyphen should be used in "10-centimeter blade". Currently it is U+002D [[hyphen-minus]] in the MOS documentation linked above, and in {{tlf|convert}}. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 09:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:There's no problem with a line break after a hyphen like this. It's the same kind of hyphenated modifier as "matter-of-fact comment". An ordinary hyphen-minus is just fine. I don't think any scientific publishers try to avoid line breaks in these constructions. [[User:Indefatigable|Indefatigable]] ([[User talk:Indefatigable|talk]]) 15:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::I agree, a normal hyphen seems perfectly fine. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 17:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::In effect you are declaring that a "normal minus" is perfectly fine.
:::What is a reader to make of {{tq|10- }}<br />
:::{{tq|centimetre blade}}? "Ten minus ... eh? what?".
::::Minus and hyphen are not the same and why should the reader expect a mathematical formula in running text anyway? [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 07:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Compare and contrast witk {{tl|snd}}. Good practice doesn't have to be mandated but it can certainly be included in templates like {{tl|convert}}. We don't have to collude with unprofessional typography where we have an easy way to avoid it. [[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 13:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC) tweaked --13:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:Different users have different setups. We cannot hope to satisfy everybody; we cannot predict where the right margin might lie, so we should not second-guess that it might coincide with a hyphen. I don't think that people will misunderstand if a linebreak coincidentally occurs between the two components of a [[compound adjective]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 20:59, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::I don't know of any compound adjective where the dash could reasonably be read as a minus. Just as we don't formally deprecate using a 'spaced hyphen-minus' in running text but we do encourage editors to use {{tl|nbsp}}{{tl|ndash}} (or {{tl|snd}}, same thing){{snd}}why? because it is good typography never to begin a new line with an orphaned ndash. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 13:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::I agree that we can accept line-breaking in a compound adjective but acknowledge that line-breaking after "10-" can be momentarily confusing. Print typographers use various strategies to make reading smoother, as described at [[Hyphen#Justification and line-wrapping]], which aren't available to us. We do have a small tweak available here, using a non-breaking hyphen in {{tl|Convert}}. We don't need to impose it on editors otherwise in [[MOS:UNITNAMES]], merely accept its use, so it would be effortless for everyone but [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] - but if they're willing to do it, can we not accept that gladly? [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 16:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
== Infobox "at least" symbol ==
| 